 Hello and welcome to this webinar launching a new report for the Stockholm plus 50 conference taking place in a couple of weeks time. We're really excited to be launching this report which is the outcome of a year or so of collaboration between CEW and SEI. And with contributions from researchers at both of these organizations and from the wider scientific community. We've also benefited from a scientific advisory panel of 27 international experts in the field of sustainability and policy. This is a scientific report it's been funded by the Swedish Ministry for the environment, but it's been written independently. It's being the scientific basis for the Stockholm plus 50 international conference taking place on the second and third of June. The report unpacks the intertwined human environmental crises that we face today. There's some key actions that can lead to transformational change in three key areas by redefining the relationship between humans and nature, ensuring lasting prosperity for all and investing in a better future. It presents recommendations for improving the conditions of change and the locking progress through improved policy coherence accountability solidarity and renewed multilateralism. The reports messages are firmly based in science and that science is clear act now and act boldly. It's my pleasure to be moderating today's webinar. And we have a fantastic set of panelists with us who will discuss in two panel discussions aspects of the report. But before we do that, we're going to hear a keynote speech from Miss Leah Narona, who is the UN Assistant Secretary General, the head of UNEP's New York office. And after that, we will hear a presentation of the key messages of the report from also passion and Aaron Abagouche. First of all, I'd really like to welcome Leah Narona to provide us with a keynote and set the context for the report that we've produced. Good morning. Thank you very much, Robert, and hello to Osir and to Arun Abha and all our colleagues, including Nitin and Sharon and the others, Johanna, for being here this morning. I also bring you greetings from Inga Anderson, who unfortunately could not be here today and so I am here to speak to you. This is also the focal point for the United Nations for this conference and therefore it gives me great pleasure to welcome this report but also be very much present here at the launch of this report. So let me begin by congratulating the Stockholm Environment Institute and the Council on Energy, Environment and Water on this report and the call to a better future. This call is so central to the vision of Stockholm Pacific, a vision that speaks to a healthy planet for the prosperity of all, and our responsibility and opportunity, and to the principles of engagement which are intergenerational responsibility, the interconnectedness and implementation opportunity that we have. The discussion of responsibility colleagues was well embedded in the 1972 declaration. As Maurice Strong put it when opening the debate in UN General Assembly, it's the first acknowledgement by the community of nations of new principles of behavior and responsibility, which is to govern the relationship in the environmental era. We see this reference responsibility both corporate and social in the world commissioners on environmental development in 1987 in the agenda 21, and at the World Sustainable, at World Summit of Sustainable Development in 2002, a strong statement by Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, and I quote, there's one word that should be in everyone's lips at this summit, one concept that embodies everything we hope to achieve in China's birth, it is responsibility, responsibility for each other but especially the poor, the vulnerable and the oppressed as fellow members of a single human family. Responsibility for our planet whose bounty is the very basis for human well being and progress, and most of all the responsibility for the future for our children and their children. And gentlemen, responsibility has been the key defining factor of the way the Stockholm plus 50 has been designed and the open architecture that is taking it forward which is both with regard to engaging with as many stakeholder groups as possible but especially the scientists as yourselves. While the issue of responsibility and its many manifestations have featured in many environmental and development meetings over the last 50 years. It's not been sufficiently central to the way we live, consume, produce, govern, look out for the other human or non human. Over the 50 years since 1972, we have moved as a report notes from a situation of over under development and scarcity to one of over development and influence with planetary footprints that will influence our well being into the future. It's already influencing health and well being different parts of the world as we see the impacts of the footprints everywhere. Environmental injustices abound, and this is another aspect of this conference, which is very central to our thinking. The environmental injustices current and future have given rise to a growing trust deficit. In our various conversations and consultations towards Stockholm city for kinds of trust deficits have manifested themselves between developed and developing countries between states and non state actors across generations and with marginalized groups such as indigenous peoples, women and local communities. With a breakdown of trust and the unfilled promises on commitments, there's a growing impatience and sometimes even anger to right the wrongs of years of consumption choices, production patterns and finance flows that have resulted in a degrading planet and growing in equity ill health mistrust and hopelessness for the many and a good life of you. Given the impacts that humans are having on the planet are flourishing can no longer be limited just by what we do in our lifetimes, nor our development opportunities of the current and future generations dependent only on the productive capacity that we leave as legacy. But it depends on is also in the help of the underlying natural systems and resources that support our well being. Economists and governments have to factor in nature and natural resources as key elements of our production and development possibilities. Going beyond GDP as a measure well being and progress is a key aspect of the shift that is required which you noted well in the report. Interconnectedness of the crisis we face climate pollution biodiversity and inequality require a change in our expected relationship to our planet to a more holistic and caring one. But that can only happen with a change in our behavior, our economic system, our unsustainable consumption and production practices, and our financial system that is so misaligned with environmental and social goals. In the informal working groups of the leadership dialogues the stock on plus 50 the regional and the national consultations the stakeholder and youth engagements and the preparatory meeting that we had in marches on March 28. We have heard repeated calls for scaling up actions rather than new commitments, moving from promise to delivery and incentivizing and empowering all stakeholders to contribute meaningfully and positively towards a sustainable prosperous and resilient future that leaves no one behind. We hear calls to respond to the urgency to greater agency, institutional strengthening and capacity to deliver. While many talk of action gaps, many more say, we need to go beyond this to address the technology and capacity gaps to deliver on actions to address the triple crisis. Many point to these capacity gaps is being the key reasons for the failure to implement commitments and the need for incentives to favorite actions and implementation of existing commitments over more negotiations. The issue of longer term visioning is a repeated ask, especially through a greater engagement of youth in decision making, as they have a greater stake in the future. Let me share with you the overarching messages we've been hearing in the past in the past year on the road to Stockholm as they may help train what you're going to talk about and then I see a very close alignment which is absolutely extraordinary. And this arises from this deep sense of urgency that I mentioned in the growing anxiety that time is running out. First message is that the planetary crisis are humanitarian and well-being crisis. So the planetary crisis undermine and impact the achievement of the STGs and limit future development opportunities. That collective action is required and that multilateral cooperation is key to accelerate such action. Let new and additional voices need to be heard and engaged with, especially those of youth women indigenous groups and local communities. The need to send to action on the principles of reaching out to the furthest first and leaving no one behind something like Gandhian Talisman. The need to rebuild trust across the spectrum. And for system wide changes, economy wide in our lifestyles in high impact sectors that science dels us need to be revisited in innovative means of implementation towards a just transition towards just transitions because there are many transitions that are happening. There are many calls for Trump's transformative action and change on governance systems. There's that are asked for coherent agile network and responsive to the needs of all age groups, especially youths. There are calls to be respectful of indigenous peoples and local communities gender positive by default. Hard wired for system systemic localized solutions to our global and existential challenges, cognizant of the human right to clean healthy and sustainable environment and a greater accountability and transparency and governance both corporate and state. To many of you present here today and to me very, very much so these have been heard before. They've been heard many times over the last 50 years. But what is different today is the urgency with which everyone is speaking the clamour of youth to deliver on our duties and our responsibilities to the other and to the future. What is different today is that we actually have the opportunity and the tools and the knowledge and the finance to read rest the wrongs and work towards a healthy planet for the prosperity of all, if only. In closing, let me speak to the opportunity that stock on the city provides as I know many of you will be there. It provides us with an opportunity for collective pause together for raising ambition and call to actions yours is very central to that. In an already unequal world stock on the strip is a chance to reshape national and global responses. It's a chance to deliver equity to make peace with nature and to amplify global movement for a more caring trusting world. It's also a chance to reinvigorate multilateralism and turn commitment to action. We have no negotiated outcome in this meeting, and that frees us to be bold, ideational and demanding. So let's stock on be the chance we have to push our boundaries. Let's stock on be the chance to ask the tough questions. Let's stock on be the moment when we stand together in determination to take bold action and make systemic shifts in our economy in our food systems in our energy systems, and in our finance systems. And above all, let's stock on be a chance for us to act in solidarity to deliver on the principles that are for best laid out in 1972, and go beyond to address intergenerational responsibility for the collective well being of all. Thank you very much and all the very best with your report. Thank you. Thank you, Lydia for providing a grounding for this report and for our discussions today in the historical context of the 1972 conference, but also for providing a remarkable summary of the preparatory working groups that will then inform the leadership dialogues at Stockholm plus 50. There is a huge amount there. And I think that you'll hear from also and our number soon as they describe how the report tries to tackle the issues of taking us from promise to delivery. I'm going to invite also and our number also person who is the research director and deputy director of SCI and our number gosh who is the CEO of CW to provide us with an introduction to a new report Stockholm plus 50, unlocking a better future. Thank you, Robert, and on behalf of the Council on energy environment and water and our partners in Stockholm environment Institute. Let me also extend a warm welcome to all of you for joining us in this very important webinar to launch the report Stockholm plus 50, unlocking a better future. As Dr. Norona just outlined, you know, the words that rang in me in her keynote speech were inequalities, not a one kind but a several kinds. The responsibility that be all shoulder, and only then the trust that we can build. It is evident that the world is at a boiling point, whether it is extremes of weather events, whether it is conflict, rising commodity prices, the impact on the vulnerable. So we should ask ourselves, how will we be bold in the way Dr. Norona asked us to be Stockholm plus 50 is a moment for us to stop and take stock of what has happened over the last 50 years. And I have the father of a nine year old wonder, what would Stockholm plus 100 look like when my daughter would be approaching her retirement age. Our report is an attempt to review that progress over the last 50 years, but also think of the components that will increase the momentum for change. It is a scientific report, and therefore it is full of analysis and proposals. We do have a wealth of road maps across the world and many scientific reports but what we try to do in this report is to ask ourselves what really will unlock that better future. And therefore, going beyond just the sectoral stories, we present three systemic shifts, and we also acknowledge three structural barriers that we would have to overcome. The report has 52 recommendations, but it's not just a long list. It is actually an integrated approach towards overcoming the structure barriers could move to the next slide please. And therefore we should recognize that while 1972 was a watershed moment for many of the youth clamoring for change. It was long before they came on this planet. How will we make 2022 a watershed moment we've asked ourselves how will the world change by the actions by the research we are undertaking. And while we will we have some notable successes, my colleague Osha Persson will now outline for you where we have failed, what are the action gaps and how we are proposing to overcome them. Also over to you. Thank you very much Arunaba and thank you to everyone joining us today. We need a new watershed moments. And because this is a scientific report we of course start in the data. I'm not going to go through all that data here but it's very clear that we do face intertwined crisis planetary and human. We are causing unprecedented change to the planets climate change biodiversity loss resource use, and we are at risk of triggering irreversible tipping points. We did take a very systematic look at the scientific assessments that have come out recently. These are very conservative assessments. But the messages are very clear. We need urgent and transformative actions. And also, there is more emerging consensus that we need to focus more, even more on rewiring our economic systems. Consumption production investment to truly address the drivers of the planetary crisis, not the symptoms. Turning to human development, we have of course in spectacular progress in the last 50 years, poverty, life expectancy, literacy. But like Dr. Noronia outlined, we are concerned about inequalities between countries and societies, but also between individuals increasingly. And in particular inequality in wealth is increasing rapidly. These inequalities are stark as we heard when we look at the data on the impacts of the planetary crisis, whether climate induced disasters, air pollution, soil degradation, and also who is causing the planetary crisis. At the CI we have called this the carbon inequality era, and there are these dramatic differences in carbon footprints in the, among the top emitters in the rich countries and the lower emitters in the poorer countries as we know. Stockholm Plus 50 is also a good moment to really go a bit deeper into intergenerational equity. So we also see these huge inequalities between current and future generations. Considering the toll that the current heat waves is taking in South Asia, it is a frightening scenario to when science says that someone born today would face seven or even more as many heat waves during their lifetime compared with their grandparents. Next slide please. So looking at the big picture and really trying to capture the key dilemma, no country, no single country has yet achieved a development path which achieves human development, but not at the expense of transgressing planetary boundaries. So how did we end up here. Next slide please. Partly because of the big action gap in global sustainable development governance. Looking at the tracking of the global environment and sustainable goals that have been set tracking by UNEP and others. And there are hundreds of goals. We saw that only around one tenth of 200 targets had been achieved or seen significant progress. So the problem really is not so much an aspiration gap, but an action gap or implementation gap. Next slide please. We also tried to take a broader look when taking stock, global governance, looking at indicators of the elements of the framework for environmental action that was conceived in Stockholm in 1972 and these are the three boxes you see to the upper left corner there. In brief we have been successful with environmental assessment in yellow. We have 30 times as much environmental research today, much more knowledge. We have many scientific assessments as I mentioned we have more data. We have also been very productive on setting global goals and also agreeing international environmental agreements and maybe over a thousand. The really weak link here is the supporting measure so this is the bottom box there in green. Which is basically finance, technology cooperation, strong organizations. The measures in these books have been either ineffective or delivery has simply not matched the level of aspiration or the level needed by the planetary crisis. And this is of course primarily hindering progress in the global south and it's also concerning when we consider emerging governance challenges, whether we're talking about the massive increase in climate adaptation that is needed or dealing with environmental displacement, but also emerging technologies like geoengineering or resource extraction from outer space. Next slide please. But we are very clear in the report and we devote quite a lot of attention to this that there are many positive drivers now and the momentum for change is stronger than ever in many ways. We highlight four factors. One is the seeming a steady increase in public support for action. There is a as a scientist that there's a data problem here but if we look at many international public service recently, there is a strong demand for action from the public. Of course, also we have the rapid acceleration of clean technologies reaching mass markets. So if we look at some evidence in the report, suggesting that we may be hitting many tipping points for reaching this mass market of key technologies in the next few years. Next slide please. So the challenge is really to increase the pace of change. How can we do that as our now outlined we propose three broad shifts as keys to a better future and this is really the meat of the report. The idea of strong sustainability, they are cross sectoral, they could have transformative effects, and some of them are not yet strongly featuring on the global policy agenda. So first, we need to redefine our relationship with nature from one of extraction to one of care. We've already discussed at some length how to value nature, how to price nature. But we argue in this report, more based on behavioral science that human nature connected this should also be strengthened in other ways in our everyday lives. Next slide please. Some of the actions that we look at relate to integrating nature in our cities in our food choices by mainstreaming animal welfare as a sustainable development issue, not just ethical issue, investing more in nature conscious education, including incorporating indigenous peoples and local communities knowledge, and also exploring the concept of right of nature more to give you a flavor of the concrete recommendations we make. For example, revising school curricula to voluntary action on disclosure of animal welfare risk from food companies to their investors. Next slide please. And the second shift is to ensure prosperity that lasts for all. And here we come into quite classic questions around consumption and production. How can we consume and produce in a more resource efficient way in a sufficient way, but still have a good life and also doing this transition in an equitable way globally. We argue here and find support in the latest science that this requires a complete rethink of both norms and how we operate in the economy. We need a transformative economics. Next slide please. Some of the actions we look at here are enabling sustainable lifestyles at the individual level, but not just through information and nudging but really infrastructure that make these choices the overwhelmingly easy ones. Shifting business models from products to function, raising the level of ambition of supply chain governance, creating green jobs that are not just green but also decent and address use unemployment. And at the macroeconomic scale aligning statistics with genuine prosperity goals. A couple of the concrete recommendations we make here include establishing a regular UM forum on sustainable lifestyles to co-develop pathways and using public procurement to accelerate the shift from product to function. Next slide please. So the third big systemic shift we see is, well we have already seen a growing interest from private capital and finance sector to invest more sustainably. But we argue that there is still a strong role for governments to help align financial flows, not just to the green investments but also away from the environmentally harmful investments. We also see that sustainable investing today is not really a volume problem so much as an allocation and access problem in particular for low and middle income countries. Next slide please. And on this shift we identify possible actions like investing even more public funds in innovation and missions codifying with stakeholders. In the international context this translates into exploring more the idea of co-development of technology as a new paradigm for the so far ineffective technology transfer as a means of implementation. We also call for incentivizing more active investing approaches, provision of more multilateral grant finance to catalyse domestic credits in developing countries and introducing joint de-risking initiatives, harmonizing the financial frameworks and sustainability taxonomies that are now emerging in many parts of the world. But we also say that maybe we need to start considering ways to actually increase the perceived risk of unsustainable investment portfolios, for example by mandates for minimum allocation of lending to sustainable assets. So these are the three big systemic shifts that give us the key to the future as mentioned there are many recommendations in the report and now I will hand over back to Arun Abha to discuss the barriers we need to overcome. Thank you also if you could have the next slide. It is very clear as I was saying at the outset that we have a planetary emergency underway. But that emergency unfolds into the sense of urgency that we're all feeling the stakeholders that have engaged with the leadership dialogues in Stockholm Pros50 process have outlined that. But how do we shift from emergency to urgency to taking agency? How do we actually be creating the conditions by which we can unlock that better future. And that's why we look at three structural barriers if we could move to the next slide please. In improving the conditions for change, we identify three barriers. The first is policy incoherence. The second is the lack of solidarity and the third is the lack of accountability. We have to ensure that our policies across the board are not just stronger but also integrated and consistent to offer the incentives for action. That means we need to explain and understand those synergies. We need more systemic and integrated approaches to policymaking but we also need higher standards for transparency and participation in decision making to ensure fair representation including our future generations. We have the next slide. But this policy coherence at the national level or even at the international level will not succeed unless we also have a sense of solidarity. At a time when multilateralism is under stress, we have to rebuild that trust with a kernel of empathy and solidarity. Rebuilding the trust with citizens including those who are marginalized but also creating structural changes that convey the message that we care about the risks they face. And therefore the report offers some key ideas around new mechanisms to deal with the chronic global risks, whether it is public health, whether it is environmental crises and so forth. So we ask for insurance cushions against those chronic risks. We also ask for this new paradigm that shifts away from technology transfer towards an idea of technology co-development. So we are talking less about technology gaps. I'm talking more about how communities, countries, citizens, companies across the world are coming together to collectively solve problems rather than wonder who wins the race. We're also looking at new ways in which private finance can have sustainability as a core norm, not just as an afterthought, but also how we can nudge high income countries to deliver on their promises of climate finance and sustainable finance. But as Dr. Narona said, next slide please, none of this is possible if we don't take responsibility and if we don't take responsibility, are we being held accountable? So we need a new culture of accountable promises, of systematic tracking of progress made on various pledges, of looking at the indicators that measure that pace of transformation, not just incremental transition. We've suggested a UN Climate Accountability Summit to hold stakeholders to account for what they have delivered, but also what they have not. But in all of this, we also need to leverage the knowledge of communities to invest more in data and more evaluation. So we now have a new way of dynamically understanding how the world is transforming around us. As I close out, let me also draw your attention to a youth report that we launched as part of this process three weeks ago, a youth vision for a just and sustainable future. The reports are available at Stockholm50.report, but I want to highlight that in preparing that youth report we convened, we collected the voices and the opinions of nearly 1000 youth across 91 countries across the world. So please look at not just what we are saying in terms of how the last 50 years have panned out. Please also listen to what the youth of today and the elders of tomorrow are saying of how the world should look like at Stockholm plus 100. Let me now turn back to my colleagues to take this conversation forward. Thank you very much, Arun Abha. Thank you, Ausa, for providing that overview of our reports Stockholm plus 50, Unlocking a Better Future. It's now great pleasure to be able to introduce the first of our two panels. And today we are really spoiled with two fantastic set of panelists as well. On these first on these panels, I will be moderating our first discussion and I'd like to introduce you to our wonderful panel. And our well includes Eric Kemp Benedict, who has been one of the key, the lead authors from SEI from Stockholm around to the suit for the report Stockholm plus 50 Unlocking a Better Future. I'm really proud and happy to be able to welcome Celine Chavariat, who has been an advisory panel member for the development of this report. And also to welcome Kuki Suyaman, who is the executive director from the Indonesia Research Institute for decarbonization. And also Dr. Agnes Calibata, who is the president of Agra. A very warm welcome to you all. Thank you very much for joining us. Our panel is really going to focus on those keys for unlocking change that you heard presented by Ausa Paashon just now, just to remind you of the three there for you. The first is about redefining the relationship between humans and nature. The second is about ensuring lasting prosperity for all. And the third is about investing in a better future. I'd like to start off with these is just trying to get some initial, perhaps quite, quite concise ideas from you about what you see as being the sorts of social norms and value systems. Perhaps even the enabling infrastructure that are going to enable us to take these make the lifestyle sustainable and make them that preferred and easy choice that also talked about. I'd like to ask that question first of all to silly. Thank you so much, Robert, and huge congratulations to SCI. As you said I was on the advisory board and I saw how difficult it was and how you made it to finally write one report with clear recommendations to really congratulations. My thoughts on this. I'll just pick one or two examples. First, in terms of building norms. I sit in a country Belgium that is about to discuss a law to criminalize ecocide. And when we talk about the relationship between man and nature. And this could be one of the watershed moments that start nationally and then eventually get translated into the international level we need to put an end to impunity. For those who are destroying, you know, in an irreversible way ecosystems. So norms are very important and some of the norms, you know, is about still law or at least soft law. And the second element and this is mentioned in the report is the critical importance of education. And it seems to me that right now, yes, we need to change school curricula, but we also need to be very creative using arts using fiction, using life experiences, getting children into nature. And I would put this under the concept of nature archie, you know, let's go from patriarchy to nature archie, and, you know, propose this new set of norms and values to children and youth and many, you know, for instance, indigenous peoples have already those, those values and they can teach us, you know how to espouse those values because at the end of the day, nature can do without us whereas we cannot do without nature. And one last element you talked about again, the importance of going beyond GDP. I think we need to, you know, we are in this incredibly theoretical debate about this tomorrow governments can start tracking alongside GDP using proxy indicators you don't need new indicators, whether they are regenerating or not natural capital. And so let's start doing this tomorrow and some countries for, for instance, the countries that are part of the well-being economy alliance are already using those, those indicators. So that will be for what I would say to begin with. Thank you. Thank you, Celine. Some great ideas there and I'll be very interested to hear the reactions of other panelists to, to your, your, your ideas here. Perhaps I can turn to Eric Eric you were involved in, in pulling this report together and in writing the report. Are there particular things that you feel that you'd like to highlight in terms of perhaps addressing what was what was called, you know, we live in a world of sort of affluence and overconsumption. How do we shift ourselves to being in a world of sufficiency, you know, are there particular things that you would highlight there. Although I want to highlight a kind of a big question that's going to make it seem extremely challenging. Because what we have to do is move to systems of ways of living that we have no models for right now. If you look at the countries that are providing a decent life for all the ways that they are doing that cannot be scaled to the entire world. We can't live within the limits of the planet and provide a decent life using what we have now. We have to change and the change is going to be tremendous. But that doesn't mean it's going to be unpleasant to live in. If you're in a world where where the norms have already been established where it's there is a notion of sufficiency and beyond sufficiency you can have a great life you're just it's just very low material intensity. Great. But between here and there it will disrupt people's livelihoods just ordinary people's livelihoods. It will disrupt social arrangements and crucially it's going to threaten the the wealth and influence of powerful people. And so the problem is you can identify norms for living that can make a sustainable world work. And that's step one. Can you make a sustainable world work and I believe firmly that that is possible. But the transition from here to there is going to be bumping up against real constraints just from ordinary people trying to make it through life and those vulnerable people we have to pay attention to them. And also from people who feel like they have a very strong position that will be threatened and they can push back. So that's I think we have to tackle those as two separate things. What are the norms that will allow us to live sustainably, and what kind of transformation do we need to get there. Thank you. Thanks Eric. I was like inside the cookie and if you'd like to build on what Eric is saying because essentially we need to have some idea of how we're actually going to ensure equity through the transformation that Eric is describing other particular examples or ideas that you'd like to share about how we ensure that equity and protect the most vulnerable as Eric was saying. Thank you. Thanks Robert for the questions and also first I would like to thank the organizer for inviting me and to share my views here as well. So I think Robert to respond to your questions. I don't have any specific examples but I think I would like to offer a, an idea that what we need is basically to have a great paradigm shift. So to allow all these things to happen. So I think what I meant is that shifting from, if I can say materialism that we have now and basically focusing on economic development to a state where we are more like for value, well-being and maybe welfare. So that that will include, you know, like not only the economy side of it but also the social and of course the environmental element of those things also. And I think how, how can we go there and we have been, I think, mentioned also earlier about all this just transition issue right and, and I think just transition is in a way to also to reflect the to how to fill the gap of this inequality and I think when we are talking about just transition then it's not only the transition process itself that has to be just, but it's also like where we are heading to is something that, that is, you know, like addressing the inequality is there. Right. So I think that would be the things that, that I would like to over here. And I would like also to hear from, from others because I think, and it's already mentioned earlier also and also in the report about the financing. Everyone mentioned that, that basically it's not about the, that we don't have the money. We do have the money but then how the money will be used is, is another story. And right now, for example, I mean like most of the time I'm working in the climate issue. So we have all this climate financing issue, and a number of countries already put the pledge to support any climate actions but with the current situation I think it is. I mean, something that that we don't want to see but something that we have to understand with the current situation with what happened with the geopolitics and so on then there will be, you know, again, shifting of financing from supposedly to support the basically to how do you call it to delete the inequality and then it may come to even, you know, broader the gap. So that that would be the first thing and I think if we are talking about support and already mentioned earlier as well in the, in the opening in that it's not only money, it's not only financing because, you know, like giving to those that need it is important. Kiki, I think we may be losing you. But if, sorry, can you hear me now? Yes, yes. Okay. Yeah, yeah, somehow it was dropped. So it's like inequality, I think inequality in internet connection. Sorry for that. No, but I would like to say also if you are talking about means of implementation, then then we cannot just think about the finance part of it. But what is more important and I think has been touched also by not only the report but earlier by Celine as well as Eric that, you know, like the quality of the human resources like so we need to develop human capacity. And I think one of the biggest challenge would be for the education and knowledge system, how we shift all this paradigm, because I think I can say it's very human right if we already live in a very nice situation, you are more than sufficient, then it will be difficult for you to shift the way you see things and looking from others perspective. So I'll just stop there Robert. Thank you. Thank you very much Kuki. Agnes, you are the president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa you work very closely with small holders. I'm wondering whether you wanted to address perhaps the idea of redefining the relationship with nature and perhaps even get into some of these issues around shifting diets and also questions around animal welfare. Are these issues that you feel that are sort of top of mind for the Institute where you're working. Thank you and thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate this report having just come from the food system summit with you all on a year ago. This really speaks to some of the things that that we're all concerned about. So I want to call out and on my way to your question, I really want to call out two things. The fact that was called out on gap in action and the fact that was called out on compressing timelines in decision making. I call this out because Stockholm 50 plus or plus 50 is going to be about governments making decisions and taking timely action. It has taken us 50 years to do 10% of what we set out to do. We have eight years to come through on SDGs. If we are going to do this work, we definitely have a lot of running to do and a lot of compressing timelines to do. So I really think that the food system summit did provide a huge opportunity in terms of shifting the paradigm. You all saw how much anxiety exist in the system. I don't think we can see that level of anxiety, the interest, the coming forward, the stepping forward, the commitments, the arguing. All that was because of the anxiety that is being built in our system because we are not taking action enough. So for me, it's really, really going to be important that we address that challenge. Now, in terms of speaking to the question you raised with small world farmers and other people, the food system summit was very clear around the inequities that are developing in our system. Many of them driven by climate change. Many of them driven by COVID-19 and many of them driven by quite a number of other things. But let's do recognize that to be able to address those inequities, we have to start asking ourselves what will it take to transform different societies? What do we need to be doing? Whatever we do here on the equator will not amount to anything unless people start shifting towards mitigation, towards reducing climate change, because the farmers that are experiencing climate change the most don't even know how it happens. We really are depending on some of the things you called out here, the need for solidarity. The need to come through for all of us, because I don't know for how long some of us will come through while many of us will not come through. And it's going to catch up with us. Right. So I really want to appeal to people to understand that the time has come for us to start thinking, remembering that exploiting in nature at any cost, driving down the cost of food, for example, at any cost, is not an answer to our problems. We need to think about the cost to the environment, which we showed in the true cost of food, and we need to think about the cost to people, as we make it very difficult for more people to feed themselves as they start thinking about the fact that they can't put the right nutrition on the table, because they can't afford it. Everything is being eroded. But this is my last point. My last point is about how you call out investments and need for adaptation, which I applaud and agree with. It has to be that we are thinking about investments and making it context specific. So I know we are all anxious, but when we start talking about reducing the use of fertilizers, for example, we need to step back. I'm the one who said we need to reduce the whole need, the whole thing of driving cost down at any cost. We need to reduce how much we put in our environment. But here in Africa, the damage to environment comes from minimal use of nutrients. We are more farmers up to 70% are cutting down environment so that they can get food. So we need to find what type of context we do what and start really supporting systems based on where they are at with people at the heart of what we are doing. So that's number one. Sustainability has to be at the center and protecting the environment has to be at the center. But number two, you talked about solidarity and dealing with the challenges that we're having and maltreatism and coming through for each other. I really love the fact that we have put in place an adaptation fund. We are going to have to come through we have millions of years behind that adaptation, but here is the catch. We cannot have adaptation where the people that are being supported from adaptation perspective are getting those resources as loans. We cannot have adaptation in dating our children for something that they are not benefiting for something they don't even know what's happening. Adaptation resources like you called out earlier one of the I think it was serene who called it out has to be grant resources to support communities that are struggling, not loans to in that community that are already indebted. So that's what I wanted to call out. But then the last thing is, let's facilitate investments our own countries where in here in Africa on countries have a responsibility to create a conducive environment that will allow a shift in investments, get investments closer to what Africans need what Indonesians need in Indonesia so that some of them, some of this challenge can can can stop. But lastly, let's use science and evidence. Let's all the stuff in science and evidence. What you're producing here is giving us a lot of information is giving us a lot of evidence. Just because we are getting anxious just because we are running out of time does not mean we want to anchor our actions in science and evidence because then we create more problems. So I just wanted to draw those out of some of the things I'm learning from this. Thank you. Thank you very much, Agnes. Unfortunately, we're running out of time for this panel. And we need to move on. I really appreciated this. Some examples of how norms can be shifted. And norms can obviously take a long time and we've also talked about the urgency for action. And we've also heard about the need for governments to sort of shorten their decision horizons in order to actually make greater progress and how science needs to be an integrated part of that. So thank you very much, everybody who's participating in this panel. Thank you, Eric, Celine, Cookie, and Agnes for this. Before I hand over to the next panel, we've been, we think it's really important. And this has been touched upon by a number of our guests. Not only to think about the science and the hard policies, but to think about how we can recover from the pandemic, how we can rebuild from war, how we can reconnect with nature. And it's not only the policies, it's not only the infrastructure and the investments, it's also through culture. It's also through by igniting emotions. And so we've been working together with artists to create a film. And this film is an interpretation of our report. And we've done it together with the performance poet, Seymour Singh, who has produced a film called Portrait of a Silver Lining. Ralph Emerson once said, a house is made with walls and beams, but a home is built with love and dreams. The earth is not just a house, built with walls and beams and skyscrapers and malls and roads. The earth is our home, full of breathtaking forests and waterfalls, vast blue oceans and also malls, but with people and all kinds of different beings. The earth is filled with love and dreams, but our home is crumbling, our dreams are breaking. We have changed ecosystems, made our homes sick, then we ignored the symptoms, waited for it to get tragic. In a world where nature is worshipped, actions don't match the words of the leadership. Rising emissions is a call for urgency. And now, now is the time for us to take agency because families of our own swept away in floods, yet we don't see pain till we see blood. While our forests shrink in front of our eyes, we renovate our home to where we cannot recognise, but 50 years ago, at stock home, an effort was made to save our home. 50 years later, there is no accountability, but it is time for us to take responsibility. Let's craft a key to unlock a better future and redefine our relationship with nature. Our home isn't perfect, but it doesn't need renovating, it needs compassion, our home needs feeling. It is already 2022, but there is hope. I see hope in the eyes of our generation as we are learning how to cope. Young voices, young voices are becoming an inspiration. How dare you continue to look away? Our home doesn't need heroes in capes or superheroes who change shapes. Our home needs people like you and me, people who act and people who make policies. We need to invest in a better future, reform finance and technology. We need to heal nature, build a world where all get prosperity as this may be our last chance. This decade, our last window, despite the clouds and the storm, there still can be a rainbow. Well, I'll just give you a few seconds to let that sink in. I want to just take a moment to thank all my colleagues who worked incredibly hard in producing that video and of course Simar, the performance poet who brought this report alive with his lyrics. I want to start the next panel by just highlighting how my, as I mentioned, I have a nine-year-old daughter. I showed her a preview of this video a couple of days ago. And I was expecting her to say, oh, how lovely, what a nice video, nice music, etc. And she said, without me giving any context, she said, you've already wasted 50 years. That was her first reaction. And it's incredible because, you know, we go through all these motions and all the research and then we forget that we've not held ourselves accountable. And the clarity of thought that a nine-year-old can bring to this actually gets us over the goosebumps and gets us back onto the road of delivery. So I want to welcome the stellar panel we have right now. Sharon Burrow, the General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, the world's largest trade union confederation, which has been in that position since 2010, known for her international advocacy on labor standards and corporate responsibility. We also have with us a stalwart of sustainable development, Mr. Nitin Desai, Senior Economist and Environmentalist who was the former UN Secretary General, under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs, but also served as the Secretary and the Chief Economic Advisor in India's Ministry of Finance and the Deputy Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. We have with us Professor Frank Bierman, Professor of Global Sustainability Governance at Utrecht University, director of the ERC Global Goals Project and founder of the Earth System Governance Project and the editor of the Earth System Governance Journal. And finally, we have with us Ms. Soha Shawu, an associate scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute, focused on their equitable transitions program. Her work includes projects on policy coherence, the issues we were highlighting earlier, and explore synergies and conflicts between climate goals and SDGs. Thank you so much to all of you. Sharon, if I could request you to switch on a video. I hope you can hear us. Terrific. Thank you so much for joining us. We have only 20 minutes with us. I'm going to dive straight in. I'm going to ask you about these three structural barriers that we have, the policy in coherence, the lack of solidarity, the lack of accountability. So if I may start with Mr. Desai, actually, because you've had such a long innings in seeing promises made, some delivered and a lot left undelivered. I'm going to start with you because I want to get to this heart of coherence in policy where multiple signals come from within national governments and then at an international level. How do you think we can bring coherence back in to make sure that all these ideas and actions we are saying have a consistent direction of travel? Mr. Desai, your microphone is off if you could switch it on please. Thank you. Coherence in policy will only come if you have coherence in the economy. As long as the economy is driven by a traditional system of market capitalism, etc. You're not going to get coherence because policy, there will always be policies influenced by top-term considerations arising about for market considerations. This is happening again and again. So we must look for coherence in the economy and that means that the key problem of the absence of responsibility and solidarity, which is what you have highlighted in the discussions so far, is reflected in the way the economy works. So, for instance, you have the notion of social democracy at the national level, but there is no notion of social democracy at the global level. There is no such sense of the requirements of some form of solidarity. You have laws at the national level which can impose responsibility or liability. You have none at the global level which will impose some, I'm not saying that what you have at the national level is perfect, but the absence at the global level in an area where you cannot just rely on national action because the ecosystem does not respect national boundaries. The climate is the most extreme example of this. So we must find ways of changing the way the global economy functions and by implication the way to at least move the national economies beyond the traditional systems of social democracy and the issues about liability for the actions that my actions that cause damage to others. So let me stop at this point. I can come back later if you wish. Sure. So coherence through the economy with a social democratic foundation both nationally but internationally as well. But Sharon Barrow, let me turn to you then. You represent workers of the world. And how do we bring in that sense of both that social democratic contract between you know state citizen society corporations, but also how do we ensure that we as economic agents ourselves also understand our responsibility and our accountability towards the planet which we are in a way reshaping with our hands. So for us, we totally accept that we have a convergence of crisis that we're running out of time and that we have to put people and the planet on an equal footing in terms of shaping the future. That brings with it both rights and responsibility. When you come to the side of the social contract where people need to feel security, we call it just transition. But whether it's peace climate, massive inequalities, health shocks, whatever it is, if we don't have a social contract where people can see themselves with the security of a job, a good job, a climate friendly job in this environment with with rights with social protection. With some form of equality and satisfaction that there's shared prosperity and a development that will, you know, assist their children and their grandchildren to do better. All those things that we grew up with. Then we can't have an inclusive future but more importantly, for the climate, we can't scale up the rapid change we need to make in all sectors, the transitions we need to make everywhere. So the social contract has decided the heart of both a contract with the citizens, but a sense of security and trust. But on the climate side, we don't fear this. What we feel is anger towards governments and corporations who are not making the changes. You know, I'm very angry about fossil fuel companies. I defended them. We all did from deep divestment saying, no, no, demand they change. They have the assets, the technology, the skilled workforce, you know, whatever it is to make the transition to maintain and guarantee jobs. The same without heavy industries. You can transition to hydrogen. There are more jobs in clean steel in the hydrogen end than there are in traditional processing areas where you will lose a few. Some industries, they won't be the jobs. You know, coal is the most painful, but we don't have a choice. And actually younger workers see themselves as energy workers or construction workers or transport workers. All these industries, agriculture, services, whatever it is, they exist. So the solutions are possible. It's whether or not we want to invest in the social contract and the climate actions in alignment that give people hope and therefore allow them to support the rapid scaling up of change. Prime Beerman, one more aspect of the social contract is actually the inequality between or to overcome the inequality between nations when it comes to the access to technology. And we spent 50 years looking for technology transfer. In this report, we've talked about technology co-development. So we are no longer thinking of just bridging a gap. We're saying now the next generation of technologies we develop together. What do you think should be these sort of institutional structures or the reforms or the governance reforms again at a national or international level so that that part of the solidarity matrix can be put front and center. So when I was on the new Climate Economy Commission, we said, I said that in fact two things. One, you couldn't discount industry because it was such a vital part, but it had to change. And two, we needed to change the IP model, the intellectual property model, because if we didn't share technology with production capacity and so on, we would not indeed make the scale and the time frame necessary. Now you've seen it. The vaccine nationalism has brought out the ugly opposition to sharing technology at a time of the worst crisis right here and now. Most of us think the climate crisis is here and now because we see the devastation of lives and livelihoods and property damage and so on in various parts of the world. But if you don't live in somewhere like Australia or you don't live in the changing seasons of sub-Saharan Africa, you don't see it. But you see the virus and you know if everybody's not vaccinated, others, everyone else is at risk. That ugliness has to shift. And what we need is the global architecture to understand that, OK, if we have to buy our patents to make it fair, let's play the market game. If that's what it takes to get people's confidence, a little bit like the market contract on the side of the social contract. But whatever it takes, if we have to have technology tools, we buy our patents. Let's make sure that people have access to both the technology, the production capacity and therefore adjust development. Just development is possible. Sure. Let me bring in Frank Bierman and Zohar Shahbou. You know, we've talked about the coherence. We've talked about the solidarity. But really what is still missing is accountability. Frank, if I could start with you first in terms of you, you look at earth systems governance. And that is one part of it is the natural aspect of the earth system. But then there is the political aspect of the earth system, which has major governance gaps. How would you recommend that we look at this reform of governance to overcome that structural barrier that we have of holding ourselves and each other accountable? Yeah, thank you so much. And first of all, also congratulations from my side for this report. A really fantastic report. I really enjoyed reading it a lot. I mean, it's very challenging the manifesto to enable change. I think it could have been at some points even more radical in some way. But I think it's a great, great start on the great basis for this conference. Also liked also very much this idea of answering your question also about a global social democracy. I think that is, I think an important part of what we are missing, what has been achieved in some countries at the national level needs to be transported at the global level. But I think one important part of the discussion should also be what has been done in the past. So some of the discussions we are just having here about coherence, about solidarity. We had already 10 years ago at the Rio conference. And one of the outcomes of that process, for example, where the Sustainable Development Goals, STGs, and they were really meant to address coherence. They were meant to address solidarity. So one question I think we have to also answer is whether anything has changed because of this central outcome 10 years ago of the STGs. I note, for example, that your report doesn't mention them that often, actually, which is not a criticism. I think it's rather telling that it is not that central in your report, the STGs as they have been agreed upon in 2015. And I can add that we have analyzed this in a major international research effort. We brought together 61 experts looking at 3000 scientific studies, all about the STGs. And we wanted to know whether anything has changed because of the STGs. And the finding is quite distressing in a way that we didn't find. We didn't find a transformative change because of the STGs. We found some discursive change actors are changing the way how they are talking about these issues. But we didn't find institutional changes in many countries. We didn't find substantial normative changes. So the STGs didn't really evolve into a normative and to a transformative force to achieve this. And I think that's an important question to say, why did it happen? And that comes to your question, what is wrong with the STGs? What is wrong with the global governance system? And what should be changed to move forward? And here, I believe nothing. This is also in the direction of needing to decide that we have to have much stronger efforts in developing global governance in a variety of fields. I mean, this is not new, we discussed this already in 2012 and we discussed this in 2002. But I think the need to develop a stronger system of multilateralism is extremely fundamental. I think it's very important. And picking up of your report, one of your concrete proposals is a UN forum on lifestyles, standard lifestyles, and I think this is a fundamentally important proposal. It won't change the entire world, of course, a UN forum, but it will change the discourse. It will change the way how people understand this issue. I think that's a very important proposal and I fully support this one. Zohar Shah, just picking up on what Professor Bearman said, this changing of discourse is also something that the youth have been pushing for a long time, but with great Augusto in recent years. Please reflect for us, you know, how do we change the discourse to increase that accountability that we're looking for? You're on mute, so if you could unmute yourself. Thank you. You know, I think, I think the way that we can change the discourse is by making sure that we are centering and focusing on the root cause of the problem, the root cause of the climate crisis and the root cause really what I feel is this idea of economic growth and capitalist exploitation that we are seeing. That is the root cause of the climate crisis. We've seen, you know, through the pandemic, how large corporations have only made money off of the pandemic, have only made money out of this crisis. And that is the reason why people are all vulnerable to climate impacts. And I see that through this capitalist exploitation, through neocolonial imperialism in these countries, and through a legacy of colonialism, that is what has left a lot of these populations in developing countries, much more vulnerable to climate impacts. People are not vulnerable by mistake. People are vulnerable because of these legacies of colonialism and continued imperialism, and people continue to stay vulnerable because the system benefits from that vulnerability and because it depends on people being vulnerable. And so I think the need to change discourse comes from focusing on and pointing that out as the root cause of the climate crisis. And the other thing I want to highlight in terms of tackling that vulnerability is the need for finance. We are seeing through the heat waves in South Asia that climate impacts are already a reality, and vulnerable communities are already facing losses and damages as a result of climate impacts. So the need for finance, not only for mitigation adaptation, but to enable these populations to recover from climate impacts is a historical responsibility, not only for carbon emissions that the developed countries have caused, but for the legacy of colonialism and imperialism. Professor Desai, I want to bring you back in this issue of sort of the legacy of the structural damages that many societies have faced and the vulnerability that persists. And the counteractive role of finance in the report, we've talked about de-risking, about making sure that we have the conditions by which investments go to where it is needed the most. So if you've advised this report, you've led multiple international processes, could you reflect for us, are the structural ideas we're talking about in terms of de-risking and increasing the flows of finance enough in terms of what we're saying in the report or are we missing on something? I would say basically it's happening to some extent, the key is we must increase the voice of those who are really going to carry the consequences of our failure to implement our programs. That is why I'm so happy that we've had the youth report as part of Stockholm Press 50, because there are people who are going to be more affected than an 80 year old guy like me. So I'm glad that they are speaking up and I think our choice is to make them more involved in decision making similarly at the country level. Now what is happening in the finance side is that it has been dominated basically by the considerations of market oriented economy. That's slowly changing because the people whose money is being handled by pension funds, venture funds, etc. are becoming a little more conscious. Now if we can increase the voice of those who are more affected in the activities of these financial intermediaries, then I think we will be able to get some of the greater transition towards sustainable financing which is happening. For instance, the total absence of financing for code that has come up now is partly because of this. So the situation is not entirely sad, but we have to strengthen it by increasing the voice of those who are most likely to be affected. And I'm glad that we have somebody from the Canadian Union Confederation because in many ways if we can increase the voice of workers which has been going down in politics for some time, that would certainly help to bring much more sustainability into the way financial systems are operating. But I think it's basically the whole challenge is increasing the voice of those who are most affected. There is no internet negotiations, there is domestic politics. Fair enough. We have one minute left in this panel and I want to come back to every one of you. Let's assume the report didn't exist. Let's assume even Stockholm plus 50 as a conference didn't exist. Let's have a blank canvas. And what would you think will change over the next 50 or what would you? Yes, what would you think will change? Not what would you think we would like to change? What do you think will change over the next 50 years? Maybe 15 to 20 seconds for each of you. Let me start with Sharon. The challenge of refugees. I mean if we can't accommodate people in an inclusive fashion today, then imagine what it's going to be like when one degree temperature equals, you know, 700,000 or billion refugees. Humanity has to think about each other and their common home differently. Thank you, Sharon. Professor Frank Bierman. I believe I'm an optimist. I believe in the power of youth. I believe in the strengths that I can see from my students, for example, the energy, the enthusiasm, the motivation to bring to the table. So I'm very optimistic on that level that a lot of change is happening from the next generation from the young people. And I think that's kind of gives us a lot of hope. And I'm looking forward to see a change. Professor Desai, you're on mute again. You're on mute, Professor Desai. I said, learn from our COVID experience. You'd often tell me to go to preventive healthcare, but the world did show significant amount of cooperation in curative healthcare. And you're going to need a lot of support, help curable cooperation, ensuring the errors that we have created in the way in which we have handled human nature in our activities. So let's hope we learn from our COVID experience and strengthen our work to bring adaptation as an international issue, not just as a national issue. And final word to the representative of the youth, so to speak. So you're on mute. I think what gives me hope, I guess, is continued conversations on the relationship between climate change and inequality and framing climate change fundamentally as a justice issue and making sure that our responses to climate change also center those who are being affected by it and ensure just an equitable response to climate change. Well, thank you so much. I want to sincerely thank all four of you for very sharp and bold answers to close off. If I have to respond to my daughter of how we don't waste the next 50 years, I think what will change is that we will bring sustainability from the margin to the mainstream of our conscience. Thank you very much. Over to you. Thank you. And now it gives me great pleasure to bring in Ambassador Johanna Lesinger-Pietz, who is the ambassador for Stockholm Plus 50 and the senior advisor at the Ministry of the Environment of the Government of Sweden. She was the EU lead negotiator on climate finance during 2015-2018 and also the co-president for the seventh conference of the parties of the Stockholm Convention as well as the third ministerial meeting of the integrated chemicals policy. Ambassador Lesinger-Pietz has been a real champion of the work that we've been attempting, has advised us through this process, but also allowed us to remain independent in our scientific endeavor. Johanna Lesinger, over to you for your thoughts on how the report shapes in part the discourse that you will be leading in the coming weeks. Thank you. Thank you so very much. And let me also start with, I think, thanking both Dr. Rosa Parson and you, Dr. Arvindar Magush and your institutes that you're representing for all of the work with putting together this report. And I think it comes also at a very timely occasion this launch with just two weeks left to go to Stockholm Plus 50. I unfortunately did not have the opportunity to listen in from the start, but I think having listening into the last two panels, this has been an extremely interesting discussion. And I did say to some of you the other day that I find it also very interesting to see how what is coming across in this scientific report is also very much aligned with what is coming across in the informal working groups, in the New York preparatory meeting, in all of the stakeholder consultations from ahead of Stockholm Plus 50. I think also listening to the discussion, I was kind of reflecting over the expectations of Stockholm Plus 50 that is laid out in the concept note to the upcoming meeting. And the concept note of Stockholm Plus 50 speaks of the expectation of this meeting in terms of rebuilding the relationship with trust. It speaks about accelerating system-wide actions. It speaks about connecting and building bridges across their genders. It speaks about rethink conceptions and measures of well-being. And I think again having listening to today, but also looking at the report and the keys to unlock a better future in the sense of the mentioning of the redefining of relationships between human and nature and short prosperity that last and invest in a better future. If we can together feed those messages and the call of actions into Stockholm Plus 50 and work with those, I also think we have set ourselves up for a very strong outcome that is also corresponding to those expectations. The same in a way that I made the same reflection and was thinking about what my minister, Annika Strandhoel, spoke about at the preparatory meeting in New York when she was talking about areas where we hope that Stockholm can contribute to the multilateral process, to the transition. And she too spoke very much about the systematic actions for a healthy planet and human well-being that bridges agendas on silos and looking beyond growth. She spoke about hoping to use Stockholm Plus 50 on closing the implementation gap and strengthen the partnerships financing scaled up, etc. And again, I think much of what has been discussed here today but also what's in the report is very much speaking to that. She also spoke about the importance of the variety of voices and I think seeing your panels and listening to the different voices, also seeing some very good friends that I haven't seen for quite some time on the panels is again strengthening very much that narrative. So I think with that, the report and the discussion today and the areas of change is very much supporting the ambition and expectations from Stockholm Plus 50. But I would also like to underline that I think to succeed in that we as co-hosts are also very much dependent on you as scientists, as representing I think different voices to bring those calls of action, to bring those voices into the meeting in Stockholm. I was also thinking of Dr Arnova what you spoke about your daughter and her reaction. I think that is a reaction that we often hear from not just nine years old but from the younger generation and in a way I also feel that the vision for Stockholm which is the longer title of a healthy planet for the prosperity of all our responsibility, our opportunity. If we based on this report and of course of the stakeholder consultations informal working groups can work together to actually find those keys and say what can the different organizations if you are a minister, policy maker, a youth organization, science how do we now take from what we have with the report from discussions on the leadership dialogues in Stockholm to make sure that we are really unlocking those keys for a healthy and prosperous planet for all. I think we have succeeded and Stockholm let me also kind of end with that and kind of reminding us of the task. Stockholm is not about creating those new commitments. It is a meeting with a strong mandate on focusing on accelerating actions and I think what has been provided here today and through the report is really identifying the key issues that we need to focus on and take action on if we are to accelerate our implementation to what we have already committed to and if we are to meet the kind of very clear signal that science is sending on biodiversity on pollution and of course on climate and putting that and I thought that was very interested interesting in many of the interventions here today and putting that in of course the wider context of development of someone I think spoke of the green jobs of the governance issues et cetera and of course I think in these times we have spent some time looking at the speeches by late Prime Minister Olof Palme and of course Indira Gandhi and looking at their speeches and they are fantastic speeches that was very timely 50 years ago but unfortunately if you read them today they are still very timely so I think we have also the task now to make sure that when we look back at those speeches not in 50 years but at 2030 we actually can say that we have achieved what we were set to do and what was challenged 50 years ago and today and that Stockholm was kind of planting the seeds for doing things faster and also to create that dialogue of having a conversation around the nexus of different issues that we so often miss but that is very much in that nexus of different disciplines of different stakeholders where the solution lies so with those words I just want to thank you so much for this report for also the youth report that I also had the opportunity to listen to when that was launched and I think that was a fantastic and dynamic discussion also and we look very much forward to also welcome you in Stockholm in I think two weeks from now thank you thank you so very much Ambassador Lissinger-Pietz for that reflection and scene setting for the meeting in only next time we need to wrap up unfortunately time has passed very quickly and I think this was an excellent event in our view the two panels were supremely engaging and inspiring and really used the report as a springboard to further refine critique socialize some of these ideas and maybe ultimately we can together influence policy in an evidence based way not Stockholm Plus 50 but I think as we all know change needs to happen also at many levels in many contexts this meeting is one of those occasions if we use this as a springboard maybe we can make high jumps and big leaps at Stockholm Plus 50 both in terms of closing that action gap or accelerating implementation but also thinking new and we heard some really interesting ideas on the new norms that we need to start socializing so I want to guide all the participants today to the website Stockholm 50 where you will find the scientific report, the used report 18 background papers and I hope also the link to the beautiful and very emotional and engaging film so without thank you to Dr. Naronia Ambassador Lissinger Pied all the brilliant panelists joining us today to the CEW and SEI teams of authors, project leaders, communication staff you've done a fantastic job and thank you everyone for listening today we hope to see you in Stockholm or elsewhere very soon thank you